The statutory policies of the SOP Act (cashflow and risk allocation) do not absolutely confine the discretion to stay a s 25 judgment; where the principal is a consumer, the adjudicator did not determine the principal's unconscionability defence, and there is a strong prima facie case that the underlying contract is void or unenforceable, a stay may be granted on conditions including payment into court.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 8 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.